The study [5]examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.

The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.

Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones?

And how many scientists, with bachelor of science degrees or higher, have signed the Oregon Petition[6] expressing doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? 31,000 plus.

[3] published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7845662/Climate-change-sceptic-scientists-less-prominent-and-authoritative.html

[4] Watts Up With That: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/